although the apron-front may be hidden under her jacket, this "sweet-orr girl" is likely wearing a pair of the company's trademarked and patented 'womanalls' under her jacket. so far i've found postcards of two variations of sweet-orr's overalls for women and this may or may not be a third. the pants part of the ensemble drapes like the photo of the overalls i posted a while back, so my hunch is that they are. the card suggests they be used for sport fishing and seems to be an attempt to appeal to a progressive woman of means.
from late 1916 until about 1919, sweet-orr heavily promoted his new 'bifurcated' style for women. i'm interested in the advertising, copy, and promotions of 'womanalls' for a few different reasons. one is that, to my knowledge, this style marks the entry of 'pants' for women into popular fashion. the nature of the marketing of the garment, however, is what really intrigues me.
sweet-orr promoted 'womanalls' to several different demographics (i'm loathe to use that word) of women, and that poses an interesting dichotomy. studying the copy in the ads from various journals of the time, one quickly gets the sense that there was no political or social ideal driving the marketing, just the desire to promote and sell the 'womanalls' to all women. on one hand, sweet-orr assures industry that these garments were in fact 'more modest' than the dresses women workers were presently wearing, while on the other hand they promote them as ideal for the lifestyle of the modern woman, more or less. the "more modest than dresses" copy was found in ads from industry journals, whereas the lifestyle ads were directed at affluent urban women and depicted leisure activities, such as sport fishing.
one form the product's promotion took was a lecture and short film at the john wanamaker store, presented daily the week ending june 16, 1917. the talk was given by edith m. burtis, a fashion editor from the ladies home journal, and the film depicted womanalls in various uses. i have yet to find a transcript of her lecture - i doubt there is one - and i would love to one day find the film that was shown afterwords. i did find this endorsement, however, from a wanamaker customer in a 1917 'clothing trade journal':
"i have worn 'womanalls' and i have walked in 'em, gardened 'em, kept house in 'em, motored in 'em, played tennis and golf in 'em; yes, danced in 'em and actually slept in 'em - and they are modest, comfortable, sensible, efficient beyond my wildest dreams. i put them on over my skirt in an emergency - as when my auto breaks down, or wear them as a dress when going in for all-day work. and no man yet has told me they are not becoming - the flatterers."
the words of a modern woman, for sure, but it seems to me that these garments were primarily used during world war one by manufacturers to outfit the women who replaced male workers that had gone to war. after the war, progressive women continued to wear pants, especially for activities such as bicycling, but the 'womanall' as depicted on this postcard seems to have dropped out of fashion, if not sight.
from late 1916 until about 1919, sweet-orr heavily promoted his new 'bifurcated' style for women. i'm interested in the advertising, copy, and promotions of 'womanalls' for a few different reasons. one is that, to my knowledge, this style marks the entry of 'pants' for women into popular fashion. the nature of the marketing of the garment, however, is what really intrigues me.
sweet-orr promoted 'womanalls' to several different demographics (i'm loathe to use that word) of women, and that poses an interesting dichotomy. studying the copy in the ads from various journals of the time, one quickly gets the sense that there was no political or social ideal driving the marketing, just the desire to promote and sell the 'womanalls' to all women. on one hand, sweet-orr assures industry that these garments were in fact 'more modest' than the dresses women workers were presently wearing, while on the other hand they promote them as ideal for the lifestyle of the modern woman, more or less. the "more modest than dresses" copy was found in ads from industry journals, whereas the lifestyle ads were directed at affluent urban women and depicted leisure activities, such as sport fishing.
one form the product's promotion took was a lecture and short film at the john wanamaker store, presented daily the week ending june 16, 1917. the talk was given by edith m. burtis, a fashion editor from the ladies home journal, and the film depicted womanalls in various uses. i have yet to find a transcript of her lecture - i doubt there is one - and i would love to one day find the film that was shown afterwords. i did find this endorsement, however, from a wanamaker customer in a 1917 'clothing trade journal':
"i have worn 'womanalls' and i have walked in 'em, gardened 'em, kept house in 'em, motored in 'em, played tennis and golf in 'em; yes, danced in 'em and actually slept in 'em - and they are modest, comfortable, sensible, efficient beyond my wildest dreams. i put them on over my skirt in an emergency - as when my auto breaks down, or wear them as a dress when going in for all-day work. and no man yet has told me they are not becoming - the flatterers."
the words of a modern woman, for sure, but it seems to me that these garments were primarily used during world war one by manufacturers to outfit the women who replaced male workers that had gone to war. after the war, progressive women continued to wear pants, especially for activities such as bicycling, but the 'womanall' as depicted on this postcard seems to have dropped out of fashion, if not sight.
